Habits are easy things to form and easy things to deform, under the right circumstances. And its periodicity can be formed and deformed as well. Habits are forms of constancy differing by a null set, the null set being the periods. If you want to create an injective function, and still periodic, it’s possible, if you omit the periods. Well if there is no point in time where f(x) = f(x + p) for some period, or where an action has been replicated over some interval, doesn’t that violate the definition of periodicity?

I suppose that depends on what you’re measuring. If you declare that where f(x) = f(x + p) to be an equivalence weaker than equality, you have something pseudo-periodic, and maybe these deformations will turn into a habit unrecognizable over time.

Something being constant just means it evaluates “true” indefinitely. If the function evaluates true in definitely, in intervals, it’s still constant, just not constantly constant. So a form of second-order constancy. Linearity, perhaps? Or the difference between velocity and acceleration.

This can be trivially represented by those dots physicists like plot. If there is equidistance among each period-point-dot, then draw a line connecting them. But the lines have to be distinguished, to determine how separated they are. This is where the notion of magnitude or measure comes in. To measure a notion of non-constant separability, assign a value. This could be called a coline.

I’m going off on a tangent here.

Habits are trivial things to break and trivial things to construct. Your ability to break a habit is nothing more than a function of your willpower. Somehow you can disconnect the periods so much that they are no longer approximately constant, and thus the habit is broken.

It takes two points to make a line, three points to make a pattern.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.